If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: ESPN top 500

He played decent with the Pacers, until the playoffs where he was godawful.

"It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

The Following User Says Thank You to vnzla81 For This Useful Post:

Re: ESPN top 500

All this really does is tell me that not many ESPN guys outside of Rusillo actually watch the games and players the get paid to discuss. Whatever you think of Hollinger at least he bases his opinion on something tangible and if you follow him on Twitter it's clear he watches a lot of hoops, and if you listen to Rusillo's podcasts he clearly knows the league. Those two and Legler are really the only ESPN guys (that aren't in game commentators) that I'll listen to. It's kind of a shame really, these dudes get paid well to watch the NBA and talk about it. That's their freakin job.

Re: ESPN top 500

All this really does is tell me that not many ESPN guys outside of Rusillo actually watch the games and players the get paid to discuss. Whatever you think of Hollinger at least he bases his opinion on something tangible and if you follow him on Twitter it's clear he watches a lot of hoops, and if you listen to Rusillo's podcasts he clearly knows the league. Those two and Legler are really the only ESPN guys (that aren't in game commentators) that I'll listen to. It's kind of a shame really, these dudes get paid well to watch the NBA and talk about it. That's their freakin job.

My take on ESPN's ranking is that it is a gauge of perception rather actual ability. In that sense, I think this ranking does provide interesting information, in saying how much observers around the league value various players.

Re: ESPN top 500

This is also based on a ten point scale where a one person doesn't rank anybody below a 4 or 5 and another person doesn't rank anybody above an 8. This is a very tough compilation and without them making this a big enough survey then it completely falls apart. I think the exposure to players is another thing. Look at James Jones, Joel Anthonoy, and frankly anybody else on the Heat or Lakers. They tend to all be overrated because of their exposure to who sees them. A guy like Epke Udoh is probably underrated pretty bad because he played decent minutes for two lower tier teams that didn't get a ton of nationally televised games. Plus, being young and having been injured a portion of his career how many NBA guys have seen much of his game?

These kind of surveys are fun though I will say that. No matter how much I disagree with some of their rankings.

"Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

Re: ESPN top 500

Dunleavy at 166.

Pacergod2, I think I have the same view as you on this. Even though they use 104 sports experts they're all ESPN employees which corrupts the results. I'm also sure exposure is an issue. If you asked me to rate 500 players I really couldn't say that I've seen all of them play so I'd be going off of stats on lesser known players which some of these experts may do. If it makes us debate a players ranking then it's something to talk about in a very boring period of time for the nba. It might also give as a clue as to how much we over value or under value our own players.
Just looking at Rush makes me wornder if we'd been better off keeping him then having Green.

Re: ESPN top 500

Just looking at Rush makes me wornder if we'd been better off keeping him then having Green.

Nope, we wouldn't. Not because Green or Rush is better than the other, but because Rush didn't want to be here anymore. His career was hurt by JOB, and he wasn't enamored with Vogel like most the rest of the players.

Re: ESPN top 500

I really don't think that's off far enough for me to disagree strongly with it. DC should be somewhat higher then Augustin but maybe Augustin should be a littler higher then 147. I think our fans often undervalue a player when they don't show the potential to be an all star but DC was a solid player. We were completely fleeced by the Mavs in trading DC for nothing more then a player we could have just signed. In the end we didn't even use the cap space it created.

Re: ESPN top 500

All this really does is tell me that not many ESPN guys outside of Rusillo actually watch the games and players the get paid to discuss. Whatever you think of Hollinger at least he bases his opinion on something tangible and if you follow him on Twitter it's clear he watches a lot of hoops, and if you listen to Rusillo's podcasts he clearly knows the league. Those two and Legler are really the only ESPN guys (that aren't in game commentators) that I'll listen to. It's kind of a shame really, these dudes get paid well to watch the NBA and talk about it. That's their freakin job.

The only other guy I'd lump in there is Simmons. I love his perspective, even if he's whiffed on a couple of things. Rusillo is by far the best NBA mind at ESPN.